W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: application/xml vs text/xml

From: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:08:29 PDT
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980727180829.009a1b70@mailback.parc.xerox.com>
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
At 01:05 PM 7/27/98 PDT, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> ... According to the rules HTML should have been 
>application/html since it is not ascii text...

I am puzzled why you say that.  RFC 2046 section 4.1 says, of the text
media type 'In the absence of appropriate interpretation software, it is
reasonable to show subtypes of "text" to the user, while it is not
reasonable to do so with most nontextual data. Such formatted textual data
should be represented using subtypes of "text".'  It seems to me HTML fits
the criteria of being 'reasonable' to show to a user who lacks suitable
interpretation software.  Perhaps I very retro here, but I still edit HTML
with Emacs, which displays only ASCII (sometimes Latin-1).

I suppose by the same token the XML generated by WebDAV is also meaningful
even without interpretation software, after all the WebDAV specification is
full of examples which are supposed to be meaningful to humans.

I am still confused about the distinction.
Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 21:09:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:47 GMT